On Wed, Feb 7, 2018 at 4:16 PM, Neil Van Dyke <n...@neilvandyke.org> wrote:
> Thank you for going to the extra effort to share open source packages.
>
> BTW, while there's always been motive, since the dawn of programming, for an
> individual project or person to have a "<project-or-person>'s collection of
> utilities", I think that *reuse* value generally increases when we break
> this up into fairly independent topical collection.
>
> Sometimes this results in packages with only one procedure, such as
> "http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/canonicalize-path/&quot;, but which I could
> imagine wanting to use without any of the much more specific
> "http://www.neilvandyke.org/racket/mediafile/&quot; code for which it was
> originally written.

Advertising

Yep, 100% agreed that 'utils.rkt' is a bad thing. If you check the
description in the README.md it says "utils.rkt => overly bloated
collection of random things. Should be split up." I've been shopping
around for tuits and I'll do the splitting when I find a good
supplier. Aside from 'utils.rkt' and 'list-utils.rkt' I think the
others are fairly reasonable.
Dave
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Racket Users" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.